Most
Americans believe the U.S. won the Cold War, yet Russia is deploying
a new generation of rockets "designed . . . to bypass western anti-missile
defense," China is modernizing its nuclear warheads, Peru has declared
a "state of emergency" in the south where Maoist revolutionaries (Shining
Path rebels) seized a town and Sri Lanka is fighting Maoist rebels
who control a large part of that country. India, Britain, and the
U.S. have embargoed arms shipments to the King of Nepal who is fighting
Maoist rebels who are trying to overthrow his government. If the U.S.-backed
embargo is successful, the democratically elected government of Nepal
will fall. [1]Why are these
things happening? The situation is confusing unless you are old enough
to remember the tragic events that took place during the twentieth
century.

Following
World War II the U.S. embargoed arms shipments to the Nationalist
Chinese, and brought Chairman Mao's regime to power [2]The U.S. embargoed
arms shipments to Cuba, ordered President Batista to leave, and brought
Fidel Castro to power [3]The U.S. embargoed
arms shipments to Nicaragua, told President Somoza to leave, and brought
the Sandinista to power.[4]CIA officials
met with the Ayatollah Khomeini before the Iranian revolution. The
U.S. undermined the Iranian government, told the Shah to leave, and
brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power [5]The U.S. embargoed
arms shipments and essential supplies to Rhodesia, and brought Robert
Mugabe's Maoist government to power. [6]Why did the U.S.
destabilize many pro-western governments, and bring Marxist governments
to power? Why is the U.S. undermining the democratically elected government
of Nepal today?

General
Gamal Abdel Nasser faced that dilemma when he ruled Egypt (1953-1970).
He wrote a letter to President Kennedy that asked:

"Why
does the United States, a country established on foundations of freedom
and by means of a revolution, oppose the call of freedom and revolutionary
movements, and line up with reactionary forces and enemies of progress?"[7]

Elsewhere,
General Nasser wrote:

"The
genius of you Americans is that you never make clear cut stupid moves,
only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility
that there may be something we are missing."[8]

I
believe U.S. foreign policy is designed to confuse the American people
and national leaders who are unaware of the Spiritual Hierarchy's
plan to "establish an enlightened democracy among the nations of the
world."[9]The tragic situation
in the Middle East is an excellent example of that strategy. If you
analyze the events taking place, they defy logic. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
the newly elected President of Iran, has announced his country will
continue enriching uranium despite the objections of the International
Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), the UN, the U.S., Israel, and many
other nations.[10]

President
Ahmadinejad could have agreed to negotiate the issue, and covertly
continued Iran's nuclear program, but he didn't. He spurned Russia's
offer to provide enriched uranium, he rejected the UN's offer to negotiate
the dispute, he "called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map,'" he
denied the Holocaust took place, and suggested "the Jewish state should
be moved to Europe." [11]President
Ahmadinejad seems to be trying to inflame the passion of the Israelis,
and their allies in the United States. Why would a rational man risk
imposition of UN sanctions on his country? Why would a logical man
encourage a pre-emptive attack on his nation? Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
insane? Is he demented? Is he affiliated with the Spiritual Hierarchy
that controls most governments?

Last
month's Radio Liberty letter discussed Congressman John Murtha's November
17, 2005, address to Congress which revealed:

"The
war in Iraq is not going as advertised. . . . Our military is suffering.
The future of our country is at risk. . . . The main reason for going
to war has been discredited. . . . The intelligence concerning Iraq
was wrong. . . . I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda
and Walter Reed hospitals. . . . What demoralizes them is going to
war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to
peace. . . . The future of our military is at risk. . . . Many say
that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment.
. . . Much of our ground equipment is worn out and in need of either
serious overhaul or replacement. . . . We must rebuild our Army. .
. . Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American
deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated
that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been
reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. . . . Oil production
and energy production are below pre-war levels. . . . Unemployment
remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. . . . Insurgent
incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the
last year. . . . Our troops have become the primary target of the
insurgency. . . . We have become a catalyst for violence. . . . A
poll . . . shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the
presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population
believe attacks against American troops are justified."[12]

President
Bush responded to Congressman Murtha's remarks on December 18, 2005.
Speaking from the Oval Office, President Bush proclaimed:

"Three
days ago . . . Iraqis went to the polls to choose their own leaders.
. . . This election will not mean the end of violence. But it is the
beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart
of the Middle East. And this vote . . . means that America has an
ally of growing strength in the fight against terror. . . . Yet our
work is not done. There is more testing and sacrifice before us."[13]

If
you analyze President Bush's opening statement, and understand the
Spiritual Hierarchy wants to expand the war in the Middle East, you
can anticipate what lies ahead. The U.S. will remain in Iraq because
"our work is not done. There is more testing and sacrifice before
us." The fighting will continue, many more young Americans (and Iraqis)
will die, but their deaths are justified because the Iraqi election
"is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the
heart of the Middle East." Does the creation of a "constitutional
democracy" justify the U.S. attack on Iraq? Will a "constitutional
democracy" in the Middle East restore the lives of the young Americans
and the Iraqi civilians who have died?

President
Bush claims he ordered the attack on Iraq because he was misled by
faulty intelligence:

"It
is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons
of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those
programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true
that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."[14]

In
actuality, the intelligence reports President Bush received were correct.
Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and used them on several
occasions. The American people have been deceived by media pundits
and politicians who debate the wrong issues. The question is not whether
Saddam Hussein had WMDs. The proper questions are:

1.
Where did Saddam Hussein get the materials required to build his
WMDs? 2. Was Saddam Hussein's regime a threat to the U.S.? 3. What happened to Saddam's WMDs? 4. Why wasn't Saddam Hussein sent to Europe, and tried by
a UN court?

You
can't understand the events taking place in the Middle East today
unless you understand the answers to those questions.

1.
Where did Saddam Hussein get the materials required to build his
WMDs?

An
article in the January 6-12, 2003, National Weekly Edition of The
Washington Post answers that question. During the 1980s:

"The United
States 'actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the
Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military
intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring
third-country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military
weaponry required'. . . .

A 1994 investigation
by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological
agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from
the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax,
subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of
the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department
also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread
suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.

The fact
that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret. In February
1984. . . . The Iraqis continued to use chemical weapons against
the Iranians until the end of the Iran - Iraq war. . . .

Although
U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened in the late 1980s .
. . Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite
U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare
agents."[15]

The
U.S. funded Saddam Hussein's war with Iran, and provided the materials
used to produce Saddam's WMDs. Was anyone in the U.S. Commerce Department
fired or censured for supplying the lethal material? If not, we can
assume the officials did what they were told to do.

2.
Was Saddam Hussein's regime a threat to the U.S.?

Before
he retired from the U.S. military, four-star Marine General Anthony
Zinni was Commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, and special
envoy to the Middle East. When Steve Kroft interviewed General Zinni
on CBS's 60 Minutes on May 23, 2004, Kroft quoted General Zinni's
statement:

"Iraq
was the wrong war at the wrong time with the wrong strategy. And he
was saying it before the US invasion. In the months leading up to
the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message
to Congress."

When
General Zinni addressed Congress, he stated:

"This
is, in my view, the worst time to take this on, and I don't feel it
needs to be done now."

Steve
Kroft named several generals who opposed the war:

"You
said that this is really a war that the generals didn't want."

General
Zinni agreed, and said:

"I
believe that. . . . We felt that this situation was contained. Saddam
was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive zones, the sanctions
that were imposed on him. Now, at the same time, we had this war on
terrorism. We were fighting al-Qaeda, we were engaged in Afghanistan.
. . . And I think most of the generals felt, 'Let's deal with this
one at a time, let's . . . deal with this threat from terrorism, from
al-Qaeda.'"[16]

If
Saddam Hussein was "effectively contained," and his regime wasn't
a threat to the United States, why did the Bush administration attack
Iraq?

3.
What happened to Saddam's WMDs?

Joel
Skousen, Avi Lipkin, and Dore Gold, the former Israeli Ambassador
to the UN, claim that most of Saddam's WMDs were transferred to Syria,
some may have been sent to Iran. Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon,
the former Chief of Staff of the Israeli army, verified that fact
during a recent interview.[17]

You
can confirm their information by going to Google and typing in "Iraq
WMD Syria." There are 1,640,000 references on the site. How could
that be?

Why
does the Bush administration claim there were no WMDs in Iraq? I suspect
the weapons will be found when the U.S. invades Syria, or topples
that government.

4.
Why wasn't Saddam Hussein sent to Europe, and tried by a UN court?

U.S.
officials had to control the judicial process, and prevent mention
of the fact that Saddam worked for the CIA in the late 1950s, was
financed by the U.S. in the 1980s, and received most of the materials
used to produce Iraq's WMDs from U.S. companies.[18]

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Why
did the U.S. undermine pro-Western governments and replace them with
Marxist dictatorships during the latter half of the twentieth century?
Why did the CIA undermine the Shaw of Iran and help bring the Ayatolla
Khomeini to power in 1979? Why did the U.S. support Saddam Hussein
during the 1980s? Why is the U.S. trying to topple the government
of Nepal today? The Secret Agenda: Part II explains what is taking
place. For part 2 click below.

Dr.
Stanley Monteith has been studying the movement to create a world government
for almost 40 years. During his 35-year career as an orthopedic surgeon
he traveled to Europe, lived in South Africa, and researched the records
of the men and the organizations that are working to bring our nation
under the control of a corporate elite.

Dr.
Monteith currently spends five hours daily on talk radio across the nation.
He writes extensively, and lectures on geopolitics. He is the author of
AIDS: The Unnecessary Epidemic and his most recent book Brotherhood
of Darkness is in its 8th printing.

U.S.
officials had to control the judicial process, and prevent mention of
the fact that Saddam worked for the CIA in the late 1950s, was financed
by the U.S. in the 1980s, and received most of the materials used to produce
Iraq's WMDs from U.S. companies.